Now that the final text of the Paris Agreement has been validated, it will be an indispensable starting point for responding to the climate peril, but it does not appear to be sufficient to halt it. For the time being, the operating instructions proposed in the agreement are still vague, and the timetable postpones some of the efforts that need to be made right away. States will have to step up their commitments to keep temperature rises well below 1.5 or 2°C.

The Paris Agreement must also accelerate the global energy transition, which is already underway in many parts of the world. The text sets an ambitious long-term course. It requires all countries to give up fossil fuels once and for all, in favor of renewable energies and energy savings. And as quickly as possible.

The Paris agreement must finally guarantee the poorest and most disadvantaged countries the means to tackle the climate crisis. While the 100 billionTP3T commitment has been renewed until 2025, the pledges are too vague to provide financial guarantees, particularly for adaptation. Reactions.

"A multilateral agreement, while essential, is not enough. Much remains to be done to accelerate the transition, and civil society will be mobilized more than ever to denounce those responsible and deploy (real!) solutions. Local and citizen initiatives are multiplying to reduce waste, cut air pollution, promote alternative mobility, develop renewable energies and agro-ecology. Citizens and local authorities will show the way to governments".

"We knew we couldn't count on COP21 alone, and any hopes that the speeches by heads of state might have raised at the opening were quickly dashed. But we know that outside the bubble of UN conferences, a real movement for renewable energies is growing every day in cities, businesses and entire countries. And it's up to the heads of state, each in their own country, to give themselves the means to make this transition". 

 

For Greenpeace, two different interpretations of the agreement can be made, depending on whether one is thinking in relative or absolute terms. If we think in relative terms, we see "progress". Firstly, unlike in Copenhagen, a universal, binding agreement has been adopted that recognizes the need to take action against global warming. A pleasant surprise, the text even mentions a 1.5°C threshold that we should try not to exceed as a target. The climate issue is becoming a permanent fixture on the diplomatic landscape: a kind of political dynamic, at least among the elites, is taking shape.

With this in mind, the text stipulates that, from 2020 onwards, all parties will have to meet every five years to strengthen their ambitions in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions - the famous national contributions (or INDCs in the jargon). This is an opportunity for civil society to make its voice heard, and for governments to align themselves with current social and technological developments. And, above all, to coordinate with each other. In fact, the creation of this agenda will make it possible to exert diplomatic - and public - pressure on those who are not making the required efforts.

But if we think in absolute terms, then the agreement falls short. Firstly, because between now and 2020, we're sticking with the same INDCs, which put us on a trajectory of around 3°C more by the end of the century, wasting precious and perhaps irrecoverable time. Worse still, because of pressure from the United States, these INDCs are still not formulated in legally binding language: each state is free to propose what it wants, and to achieve it if it wants.

Moreover, the interpretation of Article 4, undoubtedly one of the most important articles in the text, is perplexing. It sets out the long-term objective: "[States] shall rapidly reduce emissions so as to achieve a balance between man-made emissions and their storage within the second half of the century". On the one hand, there is no mention of exactly where the balance point lies, and on the other, there is no mention of a precise date.

 

Finally, this formulation implicitly endorses a trend towards "net zero emissions" of greenhouse gases, which leaves the door open to the best solutions - renewable energies - as well as the worst: carbon storage, geoengineering, various offsetting mechanisms. As a result, it doesn't necessarily mean changing our energy system or our social model. It all depends on the meaning you want to give it - which allows polluters and those who defend their interests to give it the meaning they want. Practical.

Nor is there any explicit mention of a massive transition to renewable energies. While funding for adaptation in countries vulnerable to climate change is guaranteed until 2025, and the target of 100 billion a year has been extended, the mechanism for actually mobilizing it remains very vague. And the sum is not up to the task. According to the NGO Oxfam, developing countries will need around 800 billion a year between now and 2050 to adapt to climate change. It's as if the reality of climate change, and its impact on millions of precarious lives, had not been taken into account.

Finally, human rights issues are barely touched on in the preamble, women's issues are forgotten, and key polluting sectors such as civil aviation and shipping are left untouched, since nothing is said about mobility....

[…]

For our part, we never believed that the Paris Agreement would be decisive. Rather, it's a diplomatic game that can unlock certain doors. It's also an opportunity to get our messages across, to organize the civil society movement and get its message across. 

Yesterday afternoon, while officials at Le Bourget discussed the details, thousands of citizens marched through Paris, geolocating themselves to form a message for climate justice, or forming the red lines not to be crossed to build a liveable world for all. These lines have yet to penetrate official texts. But they do exist in the consciousness of a growing number of ordinary people, whose coming together is weaving the great climate movement of tomorrow.

"By incorporating a long-term goal of limiting the rise in global average temperature to 2°C - with reference to the 1.5°C limit - governments are sending a strong signal that they are committed to aligning themselves with the science. The agreement does contain the elements to create the opportunity to make government actions stronger and stronger over time in terms of mitigation, adaptation and finance. This is an important point, but we are very concerned that there is no guarantee of support for those who will be most affected by the impacts of climate change, particularly the most vulnerable populations."

 

"The sometimes inspiring speeches by heads of state at the opening of COP21 have not survived the petty arrangements between friends that are customary in climate negotiations. The Paris Agreement is not an end in itself, and countries will have to provide themselves with the means to respond to the climate emergency. Funding commitments to support the most vulnerable will need to be clarified in the coming years, through the introduction of an ambitious European financial transaction tax."

 

"The French government is trying to keep up appearances, but it is in no way saving the climate. Despite everything, climate change is not inevitable: people the world over are determined not to let their leaders and multinationals jeopardize their future. We therefore declare a state of climate emergency, and will continue our relentless mobilization to transform the extractivist and productivist system at the root of climate disruption into sustainable societies with greater justice, solidarity and peace."

 

The Paris Agreement does not guarantee that the world will stay well below 2°C of warming. Action must continue at international, national and local levels. While 1,000 mayors from cities around the world have pledged to support a course towards 100% of renewable energies by 2050, France must now act on this objective and revise upwards its renewable energy ambitions for 2018 and 2023 in the multi-annual energy programming. This objective will only be credible if it is accompanied by a halt to certain harmful projects. The French government must also commit the companies in which it holds shares to ending the use of coal. Solutions exist in the form of local initiatives based on citizen dynamics, such as positive energy territories, citizen renewable energy projects and zero waste initiatives. Finally, France - which has made substantial commitments this week - must convince its European partners to introduce an ambitious European tax that could generate between 24 and 34 billion euros a year, of which 50% would go to the fight against climate change, to support the most vulnerable..

 

(Sources: Climate Action Network - Greenpeace - AFP)